Logiola
(379 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:29 PM
Original message |
Bush himself was questioned by Fitzgerald in the Oval Office on |
|
June 24, 2004.
is this normal to do in the Oval office? would he of been under oath?
|
clydefrand
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't think he or Cheney were under oath when they talked |
|
with Fitzgerald at the same time, of course, so they could be sure to tell the same story.
|
nothingshocksmeanymore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message |
2. If I recall, Bush and Cheney both agreed to speak but not under oath |
Logiola
(379 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. so no chance of perjury on them.. smart fellows eh.. |
lancdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. They were not in front of the grand jury |
|
but they were under oath, I believe.
|
DoYouEverWonder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
21. Are you sure you aren't |
|
mixing that info up with the agreement they made not to be under oath for the 9-11 Whitewash Commission?
I don't believe you can get away with that excuse when you are giving evidence for a grand jury investigation.
|
indepat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:31 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Me thinks this president says nothing under oath or at least I can |
lancdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:31 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I'm pretty sure it was under oath |
|
and they were interviewed separately. Now they weren't under oath when they spoke to the 9/11 commission, but this is different.
|
tk2kewl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:31 PM
Response to Original message |
6. do you think this is why Fitz is pushing hard... |
|
he was given a song and dance by bush/cheney
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:32 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Shrub and Dick did the same thing with the 9/11 commission. |
|
They don't believe in this "under oathh" stuff! Can get ya in trouble, ya know!
|
lancdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. If I remember correctly they were under oath |
|
Maybe someone can do a google search on this?
|
Jacobin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:33 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Lying to the FBI is a crime in and of itself |
|
The secretary of state of louisiana got 18 months on a bogus conviction for that. I don't know if lying to a federal prosecutor is a crime or not.
Even if you are not under oath.
Could be interesting
|
PDittie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This was a particular bone of contention at the time; whether he would be sworn or not.
Neither he nor Cheney was sworn.
I would like to know if Alberto Gonzales and/or the private attorney Bush has consulted (Jim Sharp) was present. I feel certain they were...
|
RobertSeattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Oaths are only for Democrat Presidents |
Logiola
(379 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-13-05 03:39 PM by Logiola
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3668-2004Jun24.htmlhe was not under oath but as scotty says "Scott McClellan, adding that Bush was "pleased to do his part"
|
lancdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
16. Thank you for clearing that up |
mike_c
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:41 PM
Response to Original message |
14. whether he was under oath or not, it would be damaging to learn... |
|
...that he looked a federal prosecutor in the eye and lied, especially after all the noise he made about cooperating with the investigation. That would make him an explicit and known party to the cover-up.
|
zbird
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. If they can't get him on perjury, could they get him on obstruction? |
|
I'm not an attorney, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night... just asking.
|
PDittie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
|
But actually obstruction of justice is more likely Cheney's biggest concern: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4080946Anybody seen or heard from Dick since this scandal broke open last week? Have you noticed how he always seems to disappear at moments like these? The Invisible Man
|
Logiola
(379 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:47 PM
Response to Original message |
17. interesting facts on lying to a federal prosecutor |
mike_c
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
|
That citation would appear to settle the matter.
|
Bethany Rockafella
(916 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-13-05 03:52 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Was Dick there to hold his hand? |
Gyre
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-14-05 08:58 AM
Response to Original message |
22. prosecutors do not do this |
|
if any part of the interview could/would be used as evidence. It makes them a witness and another prosecutor has to do any trial that that evidence is going to be used in.
Gyre
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:38 PM
Response to Original message |